... I don't even know who that is. The edit history suggests that AstroCB and hichris123 are to blame for not writing more.

user259867

> Stack Overflow has been criticized for encouraging poor learning habits, using a rewards system with perverse incentives favoring quick answers versus quality ones,[31] and having a community dominated and shaped by authoritarian moderators[weasel words].[32] The barrier of entry for new users is high.[33] Popular questions with both informative and humorous value have been deleted from the site,[34][35] including the very list of these questions.

@1999 if it's the one I remember, their only claim is that the tags with major influx of questions + users (aka activity) are the best ones

ok, I see the issue...

> Contributors interested in gaining reputation may be interested in the following areas, all of which have many posted questions and few experts (i.e., 25th percentile Experts-to-Questions ratio): flash, facebook, ipad, apache, excel, silverlight, eclipse, web-service, osx, xcode, and visual-studio-2010. Conversely, reputation seekers may want to avoid these areas, all of which have high Experts-to-Questions ratios: scala,r,delphi,c#,perl,php,c,c++,python,java,tsql,net,javascript,jquery,git, and regex

unless they are saying that "contributors without knowledge and want to gain rep" instead of whatever is said there

because is unlikely you are not being upvoted if the person that upvotes you knows that you are not right (not to say, that you are wrong)

> We found that a large number of questions are related to .NET technologies, OOP languages, and web development. Therefore, contributors with expertise in those topics will have a greater chance building reputation quickly.

We went in the wrong direction with nested quotes... should have required a link inside. At least if our goal is to catch the instances where >>> spamlink became a nested quote, rather than catch all misformatted Python code. Consider <blockquote><blockquote>\\s*<a (cc: @ProgramFOX)

@Pandya no need to delete just because someone disagree with what you suggest. I'm just one person who happened to explain his downvote. For all we know, many others might agree with you. Your call, but I think it's better to have it stick around longer.

I think accepted answer is very important point to be considered. It is major IMPACT of user I think. It also responsible for %Answer of site.
So, I think Number of accepted answers of a user (may be excluding self answer) should be considered at IMPACT box.

@Pandya I understand why you think that would be a good idea, but actually what it did was make Stack Exchange even more off-putting to new users and created more bad feelings between new users and established ones.

@Pandya The old "accept rate" score used to be used as a really good way to determine who to bash in the comments. People basically refused to answer questions by someone if their rate was anything less than 100%

@ShadowWizard a bizarre, eyeglass shaped ancient demon from an alternate dimension of endless sadness decided to come and play on the tavern, creating a hexacrux totem that would allow him to communicate over the planes of existence, to forever annoy humanity with is ramblings.